Key facts
- The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the CBSE to disclose information regarding the tender and procurement process for Class 10 and 12 board examination answer sheets.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has ordered the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to disclose details on the procurement of answer sheets for board examinations under the RTI Act. The CIC set aside the CBSE's earlier denial of information, citing a lack of justification and emphasizing transparency in public procurement.
This ruling underscores the public's right to transparency in government procurement processes, particularly concerning educational bodies like the CBSE. It reinforces the principle that exemptions to information disclosure must be strictly justified, promoting accountability and potentially uncovering irregularities in public spending.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has mandated the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to reveal details concerning the procurement of answer sheets for its Class 10 and Class 12 board examinations. This directive follows the CIC's decision to overturn the CBSE's prior refusal to provide information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
The case originated from an RTI application requesting comprehensive data on answer books, including paper quality, page count, size, purchase cost, total expenditure, GST payments, and the tendering process for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 academic sessions. While the CBSE provided some specifications about the answer books, such as paper weight ranging from 60 to 120 GSM and available page counts and sizes, it withheld information on purchase costs and total expenditure, citing Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
Furthermore, the CBSE claimed exemption for tender process details, participating firms, quoted rates, and vendor selection, labeling them as "confidential" and "sensitive" activities under Sections 8(1)(d), 8(1)(e), and 8(1)(g). The board also stated that expenditure data was maintained on a financial year basis and could not be segregated for specific academic sessions or practical examinations.
Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi noted that the denial of information, particularly regarding the tender process, lacked proper justification. The CIC observed that the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) neither appeared for the hearing nor provided a written statement to support the denial. Consequently, the Commission set aside the CPIO's previous reply.
Emphasizing the importance of transparency in public procurement, the CIC referred to Supreme Court and CIC precedents stressing strict interpretation of exemptions to ensure accountability. The Commission directed the CPIO to re-examine the RTI application and provide revised, point-wise replies, disclosing all permissible information while redacting only exempt portions under Section 10 of the RTI Act. Any denial based on Section 8(1)(d), which pertains to commercial confidence or trade secrets, must be rigorously justified under Section 19(5) of the Act.